Nationalist v. Internationalist

Discussion in 'General Global Topics' started by Flanders, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,581
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,588
    Michael Savage is so right about so much, I am surprised he is wrong about this:

    I have been saying American voters need to first gain control of both houses of Congress before running anyone for president under the Tea Party banner. Remember that Colonial Americans did not have a King David to bring them together in their fight for independence. George Washington emerged after the War for Independence was won. It was then that some Americans wanted to make him king. Big George’s character and brilliance would have none of it; so he more or less set two terms, 8 years, as the limit on the presidency. Note that Socialist dictator FDR broke GW’s precedent before the XXII Amendment was ratified in 1951.

    Also note the type of men in modern times who took over movements (new parties) in their countries: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and so on. And that’s without getting into all of history’s dictators who took over existing governments while the mob cheered them on. Once the American mob sees that political change is inevitable, I’m certain they will try to get their way by cheering on the new leader.

    Keep one thing in mind before putting absolute faith in any leader. Power is always corrupted by the mob in order to satisfy their collective envy. As soon as power corrupts a leader the mob’s envy becomes revenge. That’s why Americans should be extremely cautious about handing a “Nationalist Party” to a charismatic leader.

    Nationalist Party

    Michael Savage is right on the money about this:


    Parenthetically, invoking the Smoot-Hawley Act is a favorite tactic of everyone who wants to hand America’s sovereignty to the United Nations. If you think they are harmless let me remind you that when they hand America’s sovereignty to the UN they are also giving away your individual liberties while enslaving you economically.

    How does one become an internationalist? The answer to that question is where media manipulators take over.

    Fools are internationalists because they believe the touchy-feely garbage being sold by the one government world crowd. The American media caters to the fools while protecting the wealthy global government crowd. The media in Muslim countries openly supports a worldwide caliphate. The media in Communist countries promotes worldwide communism. The media protects the wealthiest people in America who are the force behind establishing a worldwide ruling class. That should tell you everything you need to know about the loyalties of the people who work in media.

    NOTE: Al Gore sold his media company, Current TV, to Muslims. I have to admit I never thought he was that smart. He took the money.

    In addition to the fools, Communist leaders are internationalists. Muslim clerics are internationalists. The Roman Catholic hierarchy are internationalists. Bottom line: Every group that wants to control the world is internationalist.

    Here’s the only part about internationalism that I like. Hard eyed realists will begin slaughtering the fools the day after they have the control they seek. It’s only a question of which hard eyed realists will get global control first.

    Finally, this message dumped on internationalism in the hope one or two readers will see that nationalism is not the evil the Left says it is. Should you listen to the audio interview at the end of the article I think you will begin to see that nationalism is a positive.


     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2013
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,581
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,588
    Ted Cruz just got to Washington and already the bloom is coming off the rose. From what I knew about Cruz, I thought he might be okay. Cruz sounds very good on a lot of issues, but after reading Aaron Klein’s piece another look is called for. If you read the article I think you will agree that Cruz citing Rawls is real scary:

    Conservatives who are serious about forming a political party in opposition to the Democrat/Republican party will have to work out a way to vet perspective candidates on every important issue. Sound bites, rhetoric, and fuzzy economic theories do not cut it.

    One of my tests is to study and analyze the way the media treats a “Republican.” It’s too early to tell if the media will pump up Cruz the way they pump up Marco Rubio. Bottom line: I’m against everybody the media is for.
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,581
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,588
    I sure do not agree with this one:

    There is nothing wrong with exposing Al Gore for the fraud he is, but let’s not make our own media look better than the media in the Muslim and Communist worlds. Those who control the media are stooges for the government no matter where they ply their trade.

    Most importantly, do not confuse free speech with freedom of the press. Folks in the media hate free speech more than they hate cancer. Free speech is akin to giving away the very product journalists get paid for NOT saying. On top of that the government never stops trying to regulate free speech, while freedom of the press is untouchable since it became an instrument of government propaganda. It matters not that both are guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    I know all of the wise old sayings praising the benefits of a free press. I also know there are no benefits when a free press becomes a government press. In short: If the press is not antagonistic toward government —— ALL GOVERNMENT —— there is no reason for a press. Calling the press a free press is the most successful government con job ever conceived by control freaks. As Americas continue losing their freedoms most still believe the press is on their side.

    To be fair, you might make the case that print press still contains one or two publications the government does not control. Not so with televison.

    NOTE: The internet combines uncontrolled freedom of the press with freedom of speech. From the government’s perspective that is bigger threat than Al Gore’s sale. It won’t be long before the government comes up with a reason to control Internet content. Probably national security or some such thing.

    The First Amendment gave the press all of the protection it needed, yet the press still became an instrument of government propaganda ——not at gunpoint —— but willingly, and even proudly in many cases. It’s fair play for a liberal to be proud of being a Socialist/Communist; it is a perversion when they corrupt the one and only justification for a free press in order to promote totalitarian government. Proof: There would be no welfare state, nor would that freedom-killing Affordable Care Act have become law, had the media done its job.

    I’ll clinch my case by citing A. J. Liebling’s astute observation:


    Obviously, the government owns the printing presses, and the TV transmitters, in every country.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013

Share This Page